On Shivaji, the Marathas and the Brahmin Peshwas (Re: Kurmi and Kunal Singh)
Kunal Singh
In article <4pnikv$p...@agate.berkeley.edu> s...@seastar.berkeley.edu (Sameer M. Jalnapurkar) writes:
Kunal Singh wrote:
>The reason why most castes are lowly today is due to Brahmanical
>manipulations -- Kurmis and other castes such as Kahars or even
>Nishads who had their own kingdoms during the days of the Rama. It
>was Brahminical manipulation which prevented Shivaji from acquiring
>the throne despite the fact that he was born of a Kurmi father and a
>Yadav mother because the Brahmins had declared Rajputs the only
>Kshatriyas of the land.
FYI, Shivaji was indeed coronated the King of Maharashtra.
Shivaji's Guru Samartha Ramdas Swami happened to have been born
in a Brahmin family. Also, the coronation ceremony was performed
by a Brahmin priest from Benaras.
Ha, ha, ha. This guy is totally off his rocker. First of all it took
some doing on Shivaji's part to be coronated. His lineage was
questioned because he was not a Rajput. And secondly the Brahmin
priest from Benaras was said to have used his feet to "tilak" him
because he was not sure of his lineage. If you want references to
prove that his lineage was questioned by the Brahmins, and there is
even a possibility that he may have had to falsify it to some extent
and pay the Brahmins a lot of money to be coronated, I could easily
refer you to a number of history books including Will Durant.
Shivaji was neither a Kurmi nor a Yadav. He was a Maratha.
There are no Kurmis and Yadavs in Maharashtra. FYI, several
of Shivaji's most trusted generals were Brahmins. Baaji Prabhu
Deshpaande's name comes to mind. Also, Bajirao Peshwa, who
destroyed the Mughal power in North India also happened to
be a Brahmin.
Want a bet ? Shivaji's father was a Kurmi and his mother was indeed a
Yadav. It was his mother who largely raised him after she was forced
to flee after the death of his father. Kurmis are known by various
names in different regions of India including Kunbis etc. Most of the
Maratha chiefs were Shudras who actually were the first to establish
the power of the Marathas. I refer you to Will Durant's "Our Oriental
Heritage." If you want, I could get the quotes for you.
As for the Peshwa alliance with the Marathas whom the Brahmins seem so
fond of alluding to, it was one of the most detrimental to the
Marathas. The Peshwas were actually responsible for the fall of the
Marathas. There was a very significant battle at Panipat during which
time the Marathas were carrying a lot of booty with them. The Shudra
Maratha chiefs, during a meeting with their allies, advised that they
should first return to their fort and leave the wealth secured before
proceeding to fight the Mughals. A Peshwa Brahmin chief retorted that
only a shudra would ever think of such a thing. The Shudra Maratha
chiefs were incensed by the remark. The caste tension created by the
Peshwa Brahmins can be imagined by the documented remark of a Shudra
chief who said that if they won this war, the Shudra Maratha chiefs
would be forever relegated to washing the Brahmins' loincloth. And
the tension created by the silly Peshwa Brahmins may have been
responsible for their losing the battle. The Marathas lost all their
wealth during the battle and never recovered from the loss, thus the
Peshwas would come to dominate the alliance. Actually, I even have
suspicions about why the Peshwa Brahmin insisted that the Shudra
Marathas go into battle thereby putting a great deal of their wealth
at risk.
As for Shivaji and the Marathas, they are quite popular in Bihar and
serve as an inspiration to many of Bihar's lower castes, unlike the
stupid Peshwas. Of course it must be said that a certain subcaste of
Bihari kurmis, have a particular love for the Marathas. There are
actually Marathi kurmis in Bihar who have migrated there after the
Marathas lost a battle at Panipat -- I wonder if the battle was the
same one. I think their subcaste is called "Ghamaila." Anyway,
unless you carried out a detailed investigation of their lineage, you
wouldn't be able to tell them apart from other farmers of the central
Magadha region of Bihar. They don't even know the Marathi language
and speak the local language fluently, even their marriage traditions
aren't very different.
My intention is not to praise Brahmins - but some people
need to get over their caste paranoia.
My intention is to expose the Brahmins and I shall continue to do so.
Many people need to understand the manipulations of the Brahmins and
its effects on Indian history and if they should choose to ignore it
they do so at their own peril. Many would feel quite uncomfortable
with the revelations as the truth is not quite what they are led to
believe and popular misconceptions abound. However, I do not give
much weight to such considerations.
Sameer M. Jalnapurkar
>The reason why most castes are lowly today is due to Brahmanical
>manipulations -- Kurmis and other castes such as Kahars or even
>Nishads who had their own kingdoms during the days of the Rama. It
>was Brahminical manipulation which prevented Shivaji from acquiring
>the throne despite the fact that he was born of a Kurmi father and a
>Yadav mother because the Brahmins had declared Rajputs the only
>Kshatriyas of the land.
FYI, Shivaji was indeed coronated the King of Maharashtra.
Shivaji's Guru Samartha Ramdas Swami happened to have been born
in a Brahmin family. Also, the coronation ceremony was performed
by a Brahmin priest from Benaras.
>Ha, ha, ha. This guy is totally off his rocker. First of all it took
>some doing on Shivaji's part to be coronated. His lineage was
>questioned because he was not a Rajput. And secondly the Brahmin
>priest from Benaras was said to have used his feet to "tilak" him
>because he was not sure of his lineage. If you want references to
>prove that his lineage was questioned by the Brahmins, and there is
>even a possibility that he may have had to falsify it to some extent
>and pay the Brahmins a lot of money to be coronated, I could easily
>refer you to a number of history books including Will Durant.
I would like to see you quote from some reliable references
(giving page numbers etc). I am particularly interested
in your allegation that during the Raajyaabhishek ceremony,
the Banaras pundit used his feet to put 'tilak' on Shivaji.
Also provide reliable references that Shivaji had to pay
money to get himself coronated.
I may be true that *some* people questioned his lineage, but
that reflects only on those people who raised the questions
and not on any particular caste. In Maharashtra, Shivaji was
revered by all sections of society, including Brahmins (and even
Muslims).
Shivaji was neither a Kurmi nor a Yadav. He was a Maratha.
There are no Kurmis and Yadavs in Maharashtra. FYI, several
of Shivaji's most trusted generals were Brahmins. Baaji Prabhu
Deshpaande's name comes to mind. Also, Bajirao Peshwa, who
destroyed the Mughal power in North India also happened to
be a Brahmin.
>Want a bet ? Shivaji's father was a Kurmi and his mother was indeed a
>Yadav. It was his mother who largely raised him after she was forced
>to flee after the death of his father. Kurmis are known by various
>names in different regions of India including Kunbis etc. Most of the
>Maratha chiefs were Shudras who actually were the first to establish
>the power of the Marathas. I refer you to Will Durant's "Our Oriental
>Heritage." If you want, I could get the quotes for you.
The caste structure in Maharashtra has evolved separately from that
in the cowbelt. I doubt that the Kunbis have anything to do with
the Kurmis of Bihar/UP. Also, there are NO Yadavs in Maharashtra.
>As for the Peshwa alliance with the Marathas whom the Brahmins seem so
>fond of alluding to, it was one of the most detrimental to the
>Marathas. The Peshwas were actually responsible for the fall of the
>Marathas.
First of all the terminology you use is misleading. It is incorrect
to say that there was an alliance between the Peshwas and the Marathas.
The Peshwas were part and parcel of the Maratha struggle. The word
'Maratha' is derived from 'Maharashtra' and the word 'Marathi'
comes from 'Maharashtri'. The name Maratha was used to denote
all the Marathi speaking people (including backward castes, Brahmins
etc). When Lokmanya Tilak founded the newspaper 'The Maratha', he was
not referring only to a particular caste group. However the name
has now come to aquire a caste connotation.
>There was a very significant battle at Panipat during which
>time the Marathas were carrying a lot of booty with them. The Shudra
>Maratha chiefs, during a meeting with their allies, advised that they
>should first return to their fort and leave the wealth secured before
>proceeding to fight the Mughals.
This exposes the shallowness of your historical knowledge. The battle
you are referring to was against the Afghans and not the Mughals.
The Marathas (led by Bajirao Peshwa) had long before subdued the
Mughals and were even extracting taxes from them.
>A Peshwa Brahmin chief retorted that
>only a shudra would ever think of such a thing. The Shudra Maratha
>chiefs were incensed by the remark. The caste tension created by the
>Peshwa Brahmins can be imagined by the documented remark of a Shudra
>chief who said that if they won this war, the Shudra Maratha chiefs
>would be forever relegated to washing the Brahmins' loincloth. And
>the tension created by the silly Peshwa Brahmins may have been
>responsible for their losing the battle. The Marathas lost all their
>wealth during the battle and never recovered from the loss, thus the
>Peshwas would come to dominate the alliance. Actually, I even have
>suspicions about why the Peshwa Brahmin insisted that the Shudra
>Marathas go into battle thereby putting a great deal of their wealth
>at risk.
Once again, it is wrong to use expressions like 'a Peshwa Brahmin
chief'. 'Peshwa' is a title which means chief minister. there can
only be one Peshwa at one time.
Much more serious, however, are your lies regarding the battle.
All the Marathas (including the Peshwa) fought together in this
battle. In fact, the Peshwa lost his life. Your accusations
that the Shudras were sent into the battle so that the Brahmins
could gain control is utter garbage.
It is true that Panipat was a blow to Maratha power. Madhavrao
Peshwa was able to reverse the decline, but tragically
for Maharashtra (and India), he
died of tuberculosis at a young age. His successors were
nowhere near as great as Bajirao or Madhavrao. Internal
dissensions arose amongst the Marathas. Nana Phadnavis
tried to hold the fort for as long as possible, but the
British were able to successfully exploit the dissensions
in the early part of the 19th century.
It may be true that a strategic mistake of one of the successors
of Bajirao Peshwa caused him to lose the battle (and also his
life.) That does not mean that a particular caste
can be blamed for it. If we were to use that logic,
then the Brahmins get the credit for destroying
Mughal power in north India (as Bajirao Peshwa -
who's military genius is universally acknowledged -
was in command). When Raghunathrao was chasing the
Pathans all the way across Punjab to Afghanistan
Malharrao Holkar (who was 'Maratha' by caste) intervened
and the Pathans could not be totally crushed. The price
was paid in the Panipat battle. Does that mean we blame
a particular caste? This kind of logic is meaningless.
People like Chhatrapati Shivaji, Ramdas Swami, Tanaji
Malasure, Baji Prabhu Deshpande, Bajirao etc are
revered in Maharashtra by people of all creeds and
castes (Yes, even by Muslims). We don't ask what caste
they belong to. PLEASE LEAVE THEM OUT OF YOUR BLOODY CASTEIST
COWBELT POLITICS!
>As for Shivaji and the Marathas, they are quite popular in Bihar and
>serve as an inspiration to many of Bihar's lower castes, unlike the
>stupid Peshwas. Of course it must be said that a certain subcaste of
>Bihari kurmis, have a particular love for the Marathas. There are
>actually Marathi kurmis in Bihar who have migrated there after the
>Marathas lost a battle at Panipat -- I wonder if the battle was the
>same one. I think their subcaste is called "Ghamaila." Anyway,
>unless you carried out a detailed investigation of their lineage, you
>wouldn't be able to tell them apart from other farmers of the central
>Magadha region of Bihar. They don't even know the Marathi language
>and speak the local language fluently, even their marriage traditions
>aren't very different.
You are welcome to draw inspiration from them as long as you leave
them out of your casteist politics. Note the the 'Maratha' means
'Marathi-speaking' and all castes were part of the freedom
struggle.
My intention is not to praise Brahmins - but some people
need to get over their caste paranoia.
>My intention is to expose the Brahmins and I shall continue to do so.
>Many people need to understand the manipulations of the Brahmins and
>its effects on Indian history and if they should choose to ignore it
>they do so at their own peril. Many would feel quite uncomfortable
>with the revelations as the truth is not quite what they are led to
>believe and popular misconceptions abound. However, I do not give
>much weight to such considerations.
It is the obfuscation and the lies of the casteists that need to
be exposed. Your knowledge of history is pathetic. Have you
heard of Tanaji Malasure? Have you heard of Baji Prabhu Deshpande?
I do not think you will ever understand Maratha history
as long as you remain bogged down in your casteist cowbelt politics.
Go enjoy your cut from the 2000 crore your Lalu has looted
from the poor people of Bihar!!
P. Dwivedi
I cannot help but congratulate Jalnapurkar for his attempt to correct the
so-called comprehension of History of Shri Kunal Singh.
On another note, however, I will have to disagree with him (Jalnapurkar)
on his generalization of castist politics of Bihar to whole Hindi
speaking North. North is very big and has a lot of good people and
places, and Bihar is just part of it.
I am still hoping to hear from Shri Singh regarding the caste-based
hatred he is trying to spread.
Satish Y. Deodhar
Among other things, Kunal sing wrote:
>>My intention is to expose the Brahmins and I shall continue to do so.
>>Many people need to understand the manipulations of the Brahmins and
>>its effects on Indian history and if they should choose to ignore it
Mr. Kunal Singh, your intentions seem to give you enough fodder for perverted prejudice.
For your kind informatin, Shahu Maharaj gave the prime ministership (Peshwai) to Balaji and
his son Bajirao because they were able administrators and warriors too. The Peshwai was not
snatched by these brahmins by coup of any sorts. In becoming Peshwa, Shahu did not look at
their caste, but their abilities.
Bajirao I encouraged many sardars to rise to power (e.g. Malharrao Holkar and others). Both
Bajirao and Chimajiappa dined and mingles with their so called 'low caste' sardars. The success
of Bajirao is attributed to the fact that he treated every ordinary sepoy with respect. This
certainly built the morale of his army.
In fighting againt the Portuguese, a young sardar lost his life, and Bajirao personally went to
see his family and saw to it that the family does not suffer financially.
Will pen no more on this thread.
Sameer M. Jalnapurkar
P. Dwivedi wrote:
>On another note, however, I will have to disagree with him (Jalnapurkar)
>on his generalization of castist politics of Bihar to whole Hindi
>speaking North. North is very big and has a lot of good people and
>places, and Bihar is just part of it.
I agree - my references to the 'cowbelt' were perhaps uncalled
for. Apologies for any ruffled feelings.
-Sameer
Dhananjay Kulkarni
Kunal Singh wrote:
-Want a bet ? Shivaji's father was a Kurmi and his mother was indeed a
-Yadav. It was his mother who largely raised him after she was forced
-to flee after the death of his father. Kurmis are known by various
-names in different regions of India including Kunbis etc. Most of the
-Maratha chiefs were Shudras who actually were the first to establish
-the power of the Marathas. I refer you to Will Durant's "Our Oriental
-Heritage." If you want, I could get the quotes for you.
You are betting on the subject which you know a very little about.
The problem here is you are referring to foreign authors books and you
know nothing about the casts in Maharashtra. For your information "Maratha"
is a cast and does not refer to "Maharashtrian" people.
Shivaji's surname was "Bhosle" which is a very typical "maratha"
surname. So try reading some authentic marathi books on this subject
and may be it will enlighten you a little bit. The greatness of
Shivaji Maharaj was in taking all the people with him (disregarding
the cast) to achive a worthy and productive objective. Learn something
from that instead of talking about brahmin manipulations. It is amazing
that you could even think about these things while reading about
the great legend like Shivaji Maharaj. His guru was shri Ramadas swami
who was brahmin. They both had great respect and love for each other.
(I could quote his words in his letter to sambhaji, Shivaji's son,
about greatness of Shivaji Maharaj but then it would be waste on a guy
like you.)
Also do not generalize saying brahmins manipulated low cast people by
giving reference to ancient systems. There are good and bad people
in every cast and religion.
And the most important, get lost and do not reply.
Gopala GANESH
k...@ireng3.eng.sun.com (Dhananjay Kulkarni) wrote:
> Kunal Singh wrote:
> Also do not generalize saying brahmins manipulated low cast people by
> giving reference to ancient systems. There are good and bad people
> in every cast and religion.
Amen! great advice! there are only evil individuals, not evil people.
do not stereotype. - ganesh
